[Rules] The FIA - what's occurring there?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

My understanding is it's set by the final free practice session that occurred. Hasn't that always been the case in F1?

If that is the case, why has there been so much deliberation about how the grid should be set regarding this race?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If that is the case, why has there been so much deliberation about how the grid should be set regarding this race?

There's debate about everything that happens in F1, rules about it or not?

The only real change to that regulation for decades has been when they introduced sprint races and had to reword it as it as it referenced FP3 specifically. Now it says FP1 on sprint weekends, FP3 on normal weekends.

[midgetman]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

I remain disappointed at missing Mr Hamilton in Mr Senna’s 1990 Marlboro McLaren Honda

I'm watching it now live

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[S griffin]

I haven't had a chance to see the demo run. Have to see if C4 show it.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by midgetman

I'm watching it now live

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

How absolutely cool!

[flatlandsman]

Damn shame it was wet, I would think Lewis might have been allowed a run lap and a show off applause lap!!

[E.B]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

How absolutely cool!

I thought it looked a bit naked and in fact odd without its now illegal Marlboro stickers in place. Good to see it and hear it on the broadcast though

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by E.B

I thought it looked a bit naked and in fact odd without its now illegal Marlboro stickers in place. Good to see it and hear it on the broadcast though

That is really weird because if it had been a historic race, the logos would have been permitted.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

That is really weird because if it had been a historic race, the logos would have been permitted.

Interesting. The strobes were run back in the day in countries that didn't allow tobacco promotion, so in fact the strobes are just as meaningful as having the name of the tobacco company down the side of the car if you think about it.

I might be that even a historic race held in Brazil might not be permitted to run tobacco logos.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Interesting. The strobes were run back in the day in countries that didn't allow tobacco promotion, so in fact the strobes are just as meaningful as having the name of the tobacco company down the side of the car if you think about it.

I might be that even a historic race held in Brazil might not be permitted to run tobacco logos.

Maybe, but some other logo's on the car, like Shell etc, were all missing too.
But Boss was there!

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Maybe, but some other logo's on the car, like Shell etc, were all missing too.
But Boss was there!

That Hugo gets around!

[Skam85]

It's still so weird to me that you can't have a tobacco brand on the car but every sport and every stadium has some sort of betting ad emblazened around the place.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

That is really weird because if it had been a historic race, the logos would have been permitted.

Indeed. Or maybe not in certain areas now. There was a Heritage Touring car race supporting the recent Bathurst 1000. Genuine cars, not replicas. Many of the period liveries were cigarette sponsors. Usually historic liveries are permitted to run as in period. For practice and qualifying this was the case but come one of the races a directive was issued which resulted in logos being disguised.

It resulted in a comical farce as cars appeared with maybe a letter of the brand name taped over. It likely resulted in more brand awareness in the media than had they run unaltered. Benson and Hedges Racing became Bens-- Hedges Racing, Winfield became Wi-field etc.



It seems it is a broadcasting law change here that cause the Bathurst problem...ifits televised live on TV its a no no. No TV coverage no problem.

“It’s come down as a Federal Government directive that broadcasting of tobacco advertising is no longer permitted

.
Ironically the Programme had the full cigarette brand name in the entry list, and the commentary mentioned the names in full! A total farce.
(Meanwhile the broadcast was packed with gambling and on-line gambling advertising)
Short article and pics below.

Bathurst racers forced to cover tobacco signage

[Skam85]

I always loved when Jordan did the Buzzin Hornets or Be On Edge for Benson & Hedges

[bjohnsonsmith]

I thought Zakspeed changing the name of their sponsor from East to West was clever.

[flatlandsman]

Best one I ever saw was rallycross, Bjorn Skogstad was sponsored by Camel, they left the logo and even the words from a distance, but up close it said Came1st with a tiny st!!

[Tourer]

The GPDA pushes back on swearing and general need for the Pres to lecture drivers in the media. Also calls for transparency with what happens to all the fine money. Personally I think it's good that the drivers are making a collective point.

[chillibowl]

many good points by the drivers which i agree with. treat them like adults and offer transparency on where the fine money goes for sure.

but the part where they ask not to be given instructions through the media...while totally a valid point, one which im sure would do much to reduce the acrimony (by keeping it out of the public spotlight), i dont think the GPDA posting their letter in an open format via social media while similarly asking the other side to not do things like this is a very constructive step.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

many good points by the drivers which i agree with. treat them like adults and offer transparency on where the fine money goes for sure.

but the part where they ask not to be given instructions through the media...while totally a valid point, one which im sure would do much to reduce the acrimony (by keeping it out of the public spotlight), i dont think the GPDA posting their letter in an open format via social media while similarly asking the other side to not do things like this is a very constructive step.

I believe, although am unable to provide evidence of it, that the drivers have raised a number of these points at their briefings/meetings with the FIA representatives at the last few races. And I would guess that they feel that they didn't receive the traction that they felt was warranted, so have now felt that they have no alternative but to go public.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I believe, although am unable to provide evidence of it, that the drivers have raised a number of these points at their briefings/meetings with the FIA representatives at the last few races. And I would guess that they feel that they didn't receive the traction that they felt was warranted, so have now felt that they have no alternative but to go public.

Makes sense - plus of course the whole discussion / lecturing was initiated by the Pres in the media, so it makes total sense to reply using similar methodology and make the point - all part of standing up for themselves.

If, in the future, the Pres has such discussions with the drivers directly, away from media cover, then that would be the time for the GPDA to also follow the same methodology.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I believe, although am unable to provide evidence of it, that the drivers have raised a number of these points at their briefings/meetings with the FIA representatives at the last few races. And I would guess that they feel that they didn't receive the traction that they felt was warranted, so have now felt that they have no alternative but to go public.

that's fair.

[billy bleach]

Do Rugby players or Cricketers or even Boxers or Footballers feel they cannot speak without swearing? Me thinks these well paid primadonas need to get a grip….

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Do Rugby players or Cricketers or even Boxers or Footballers feel they cannot speak without swearing? Me thinks these well paid primadonas need to get a grip….

I'd ask if any of those groups have their federation fining them for swearing (other than abusive swearing). Got to also ask the question if the intensity and potential life risk is as high in those sports.

I know what you mean but I do think that there are differences.

[flatlandsman]

One thing to add here, all sports are the same. It depends on nuance. Dylan Hartley openly called a referee a cheat in a big final, was sent off and rightly banned. Years later he is England rugby captain.

Fans don't care about swearing as long as it does not get silly, I am presuming because of the pathetic, over apologising done on live tv, there is a contract being broken by the broadcaster if it is aired. And this could have ramifications I presume.

MBS moaning about it it is just posturing from the head of the FIA, he has to do it really, but you would think he had more important things to worry about

[porsche962fan]

did this become reality ?

https://youtu.be/lFfcJ4cx024?si=bEg3iGVNqIail-OS&t=85